| Semester | April 2021 | Module Code | ACC4304 |
| Module Title | Auditing | ||
| Coursework Structure | Essay (1,800 words) | Assignment Weighting | 40% |
| Assignment Title | Critically evaluate the auditors’ role in detecting financial statement frauds. | ||
| Coursework Submission Deadline | Date: Week 13 of April 2021 Session Time: 5pm Method: SafeAssign via Blackboard |
| Assessment Criteria |
| Learning Outcomes: Knowledge and Understanding tested in this assignment: |
| Evaluate the purpose of auditing and the auditor |
| Learning Outcomes: Skills and Attributes tested in this assignment: |
| Examine current techniques and issues in auditing |
| General Coursework Rules |
| Written Assignment must be submitted online through SafeAssign (or other plagiarism checker) via Blackboard for originality check. Oral Presentation must be recorded and securely uploaded to YouTube (or other online video platform) for moderation purpose. The private link to video must be given to the lecturer during submission. Assignment submitted after the deadline will be subject to a penalty. Please refer to the guidelines on Coursework Submission that can be found in the INTI-UH Student Guidebook. Suspected academic misconduct will be handled according to the Policies and Procedures for Academic Dishonesty and Misconduct that can be found in the INTI-UH Student Guidebook. |
| Assignment Brief |
External auditors play a crucial role in bridging the principal and the agent’s interest by executing their role in providing an audit opinion on the financial statement. However, recent accounting scandals in Malaysia raise concerns about external audit quality and their role in detecting financial statement frauds (Aghghaleh, Mohamed, and Rahmat, 2016)
Reference:
Aghghaleh, S., Mohamed, Z., & Rahmat. M. (2016) ‘Detecting financial statement frauds in Malaysia : Comparing the abilities of Beneish and Dechow Models’. Asian Journal of Accounting and Governance. 7 pp.57–65. [Online] Available at: https://ejournal.ukm.my/ajac/article/view/11847 [Assessed: 16 February 2021]
Required:
Critically evaluate the auditors’ role in detecting financial statement frauds.
Other Specific Instructions for this Assignment
None
| Student Support and Guidance |
| For further help, contact your module leader/lecturer during consultation hours or by email. Use the Grading Criteria and Mark Scheme to help improve your work. Make full use of Library search to identify relevant academic material and find links to other Information Databases and the Information Management contact details. For HBS students, you may go to CASE website www.studynet.herts.ac.uk/go/CASE/ for more student support and guidance. |
| Marking Criteria and Feedback |
| Performance will be assessed using UH Grading Criteria and Mark Scheme. These two documents are attached to this assignment brief. Feedback will typically be given within 4 weeks from the submission deadline in a written/typed/verbal form. |
UGGrading Criteria for HBS Coursework(Essay)
| ESSAY | Presentation & structure | Intellectual curiosity (Quality of academic sources). Use & presentation of Harvard Referencing | Content/ Terms/ Findings/ Definitions/ Calculations | Breadth / Depth / Integration of Literature | Discussion/Analysis/Critical evaluation &/or Reflection |
| 90-100 Outstanding | Outstanding presentation & essay structure, with flowing paragraphs. Articulate & fluent academic writing style No grammatical / spelling errors. | Outstanding selection of quality sources, well beyond core & recommended resources. Outstandingstandard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. | Outstanding exploration of topic showing outstanding knowledge & understanding through thorough & appropriate research. Impressive choice and range of appropriate content. | Outstanding business insight & application. Outstanding integration of literature/data into work. Very impressive breadth and depth. | Outstanding level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. Highly developed/ focused work. |
| 80-89 Excellent | Excellent presentation & essay structure, with flowing paragraphs. Articulate & fluent academic writing style. Only minor errors. | Excellent selection ofquality sources. Evidence of independent searching beyond core & recommended resources. Excellent standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. | Excellent level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated. Evidence of appropriate reading. Covers all relevant points & issues. | Excellent business insight & application. Excellent integration of literature/data into work. Impressive breadth and depth. | Excellent level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. Clearly developed points all of which are relevant to the topic. |
| 70-79 Very Good | Very good presentation & essay structure, with flowing paragraphs. Fluent academic writing style. Very few grammatical errors & spelling mistakes. | Very good selection of mostly quality sources beyond the recommended resources. Few irrelevant/poor quality sources used. Very good standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. | Very good level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated. Covers most relevant points & issues. Few errors / omissions in content/calculations. | Very good business insight & application. Literature/data is integrated in a way that demonstrates very good breadth and depth of understanding. | Very good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. A few less relevant ideas/points or would benefit from further development &/or evaluation/comparison. |
| 60-69 Good | Good presentation & essay structure with effective paragraphing. Writing is mainly good with some flow and spelling/grammar errors seldom impede understanding | Good selection of quality sources but some irrelevant/poor quality sources used beyond the recommended reading. Good standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. | Good grasp of the topic & some of its implications presented. Good knowledge & understanding is demonstrated. Minor errors / omissions in content/ calculations. | Good business insight & application. Literature /data is integrated in a way that demonstrates good breadth and depth of understanding. | Good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection but more ideas/points could be addressed /developed further. |
| 50-59 Clear Pass | Clear presentation and sound essay structure with paragraphing that is effective for the most part. Writing is mainly clear, but errors may slightly impede understanding | Some quality sources used to clear effect, but some may be inappropriate. Limited attempt to go beyond recommended reading. Harvard referencing system is mostly consistently, though there may be minor inaccuracies. | Sound grasp of the main topic with clear knowledge and understanding of main issues demonstrated. There may be some errors/omissions in content/calculations | Sound business insight & application. Literature/data is integrated in a way that demonstrates clear understanding. | Sound level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection but some irrelevant points and more ideas/points could be addressed /developed further. |
| 40-49 Marginal Pass | Satisfactory: Basic essay structure. Not always written clearly & has grammatical & / or spelling errors which impede understanding. See CASE/T&L with feedback | Satisfactory: Some quality sources used. Research did not go beyond the recommended sources. Satisfactory referencing within text & some inconsistent use of Harvard referencing system. See CASE/ T&L with feedback | Satisfactory content / level of knowledge of the topic. Addresses most of the task. Some errors / omissions in content/ calculations. May benefit from further research. | Satisfactory business insight & application. Limited integration with literature/ data. Use of literature/data but limited in breadth OR depth. | Satisfactory: Basic evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection but some points superficially made so need further development. See CASE/T&L with feedback |
| 30-39 Marginal Fail | Weak essay format. Limited or poor structure. Muddled work with many spelling & / or grammatical errors. Must see CASE/T&L with feedback | Weak: Limited evidence of appropriate research. Some use made of recommended reading, but the majority of sources are irrelevant/of poor quality. Weak use of Harvard referencing system with errors & inconsistently applied. Must see CASE/ T&L with feedback | Weak: Limited content / knowledge/ calculations. Limited or muddled understanding of the topic/question. Does not meet all the learning outcomes. | Weak: Unsatisfactory evidence of business application & insight Work needs to show better links between practical application & theory. | Weak: Limited evidence of discussion/ analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. More development & comment needed. May need to do more than describe. Must see CASE/T&L with feedback |
| 20 – 29 Clear Fail | Inadequate essay format & poor paragraphing / signposting. Inappropriate writing style Poorly written &/or poor spelling & grammar. Must see CASE/T&L with feedback | Inadequate: Little evidence of appropriate research. Few quality sources used from recommended reading. Inadequate use of Harvard referencing with many errors &/or inconsistencies. Must see CASE/ T&L with feedback | Inadequate: Lacking in relevant content/ knowledge/calculations. Content irrelevant / inaccurate. Does not meet all the learning outcomes. | Inadequate: Lacks evidence of business application & insight. Some literature irrelevant to topic. | Inadequate: Lacking / inadequate level of discussion/ analysis/critical evaluation & /or reflection. Descriptive. Must see CASE/T&L with feedback |
| 0 – 19 Little or Nothing of merit | Nothing of merit: Poorly written work, lacking structure, paragraphing / signposting. Many inaccuracies in spelling & grammar. Must see CASE/T&L with feedback | Nothing of merit: No evidence of research. No use made of recommended reading. Sources are irrelevant & of poor quality. No or little attempt to use the recommended Harvard referencing system. Must see CASE/ T&L with feedback | Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of knowledge demonstrated. Content used irrelevant / not appropriate/ to the topic. Does not meet the learning outcomes. | Nothing of merit: No evidence of appropriate business application & insight. | Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of discussion/analysis/critical evaluation &/or reflection Must see CASE/T&L with feedback |
Individual Essay Marking and Feedback Sheet
| Assignment Title : | Date : | ||
| Module Title : | Module Code : | ||
| Name : | ID Number : |
Please refer to Grading Criteria for Essay when awarding marks (upon 100). Key in the weightage (X%) for each criteria and the detailed tasks and expectations (link to MLO).
| Grading Criteria | MLO | 100m | X% | Comments / Feedback / Feed Forward |
| C1. Presentation & structure: Follows logical structure with good flow; meet the format requirements outlined in the instruction, articulate and fluent academic writing. | /100 | /5 | ||
| C2. Intellectual curiosity (Quality of academic sources). Use & presentation of Harvard Referencing Use a minimum of 8 sources; in-text citations done properly and use Harvard referencing style. | /100 | /10 | ||
| C3. Content/ Terms/ Findings/ Definitions/ Calculations Perform full and rich content including problem, include one theory, background evidence of research and findings with specific examples; demonstrated competence and knowledge of the key issues | /100 | /20 | ||
| C4. Breadth / Depth / Integration of Literature Articulate appropriate and relevant data; clear tables and charts with accurate data to support findings | /100 | /30 | ||
| C5. Discussion /Analysis /Critical evaluation &/or Reflection Express a strong, focused argument, well supported by impressive analysis and evidence, provide relevant and achievable recommendations; represents well critical thinking skills | /100 | /25 | ||
| C6. Reflections (Self) Reflects the skills gained from the course and suggestion on how to use the knowledge learned in future | /100 | /10 | ||
| Total (Assessor) | /100 | |||
| Total (Peer Reviewer/Moderator) | /100 | |||
| UH Internal Moderator Comments | External Examiner Comments (if applicable) |
Get expert help for Critically evaluate the auditors’ role in detecting financial statement frauds Assignment and many more. Best service in Australia. Online Order Now!
No Fields Found.